New Delhi, Oct. 1 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh police for not recording the name of the accused caught on the spot in an FIR observing that with such conduct, the people will not trust the police and the court will be forced to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over all criminal cases in the state. "How will people trust you if this is how you proceed with matters. In everything you seem to have an agenda," a bench of justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva asked the state after being confronted with a case where a woman appeared in person and complained that the accused, who was riding a motorcycle, was caught by her in a crime and handed over to the police. Yet, the FIR mentioned "unknown" in the accused column. The court summoned the police officer concerned to court on the next hearing seeking an explanation over such "cover-up". The bench said, "It is better that we disband the UP police and ask the CBI to step into all your investigations. This nonsense has to stop at some point." The petitioner had accused the police of a cover-up by pointing out that at the time of handing over the accused, she noticed that the bike had no registration plate. Later, during the investigation, a registration number was assigned to the bike. The court remarked, "Toeing the line is one thing but you are bending over backwards." The complainant, who appeared in person, had sought cancellation of bail of the accused and said that at every point during the probe, the police did not act fairly. It was stated that when the bail matter was pending before the Allahabad high court, a status report of the probe was sought. It was at that point that the police added the name of the accused in the charge sheet. The state filed an affidavit informing the latest details of the probe. But the bench found it uninspiring. It remarked, "You catch the accused at the spot but don't name him. Why will you do this? Why did you register an FIR against an unknown motorcycle rider if he was caught at the spot? How do you expect people to trust you?" The court observed, "Perhaps you did not name in the FIR so that if the equation works out, you can substitute the name and bring in one of your own names. You must be keeping a list of accused in different FIRs. Whoever has less number of FIRs, you can then include his name. Is that how it works in the state?" Passing an order, the court said, "We have found the affidavit filed by the UP Police to be totally uninspiring. We direct the officer to be present in court on the next date of hearing with a better affidavit explaining as to why the FIR was registered against an unknown motorcycle rider when it is an admitted fact that he was apprehended at the spot." The court further directed the police to mention in the affidavit the reason for supplementing the information of the accused in the charge sheet later. The court has posted the matter after four weeks....